Case 1600943/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Les Little v Wrexham Demolition & Dismantling Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600943/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Les Little
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the absence of an ET3 response form from Wrexham Demolition & Dismantling Limited, Employment Judge Harfield said there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination and, acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013, upheld the claimant's claims. The judgment records awards for arrears of pay gross of £1,360.00, one week's statutory notice pay of £680.00, and holiday pay gross of £1,108.40.
The total awarded was £3,148.40. The judgment also states that the claimant is responsible for any tax and employee national insurance due. No award was made for accountants' fees because the tribunal did not consider that it had jurisdiction to make such an award in an arrears of pay claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay gross awarded by default judgment under Rule 21; no ET3 response was filed. | Upheld | — | £1,360 |
| Breach of contract | One week's statutory notice pay awarded by default judgment under Rule 21; no ET3 response was filed. | Upheld | — | £680 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay gross awarded by default judgment under Rule 21; no ET3 response was filed. | Upheld | — | £1,108 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,148
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal's Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.